Reading through the article, it was clear that Hari either was completely confused about the basis for Objectivism or simply buys into the collectivist bent of modern Liberal thought that needs to push down any sort of outright individualist philosophy. It is also very clear that Hari is unable to divorce the philosophy from the philosopher, feeling a need to point out every fault of Rand as an indictment of Objectivism.

In his discussion of Atlas Shrugged, Hari makes the comment of “Her heroes are a cocktail of extreme self-love and extreme self-pity: They insist they need no one, yet they spend all their time fuming that the masses don’t bow down before their manifest superiority.” If Hari actually read the book and got this out of it, then he needs to go back and re-read it. There is no claim the masses should be bowing down to the protagonists. Instead, there is the claim that those who are attempting to use them, either through force or fraud (looters or moochers), should stop doing so and actually offer something in trade rather than expecting it to be given to them or just taking it by force.

Hari goes on to make the inference that Rand was endorsing only the rich should be in control, when that was never said or intended. The intention was that only those who are actual producers should have control. Those who contribute nothing themselves, only taking from others, should have no say. Otherwise, you end up with what we have in the current day and age where earmarks are voted in Congress to redistribute wealth from those who have actually earned it to those who have done nothing to earn it.

Yes, Ayn Rand had her failings as a person. To be honest, the character she most resembles from her books isn’t Dagny Taggart or Dominique Francon, but rather Gail Wynard. She fostered a cult of personality around her for her own personal power and ego stroking, leaving the path she laid down in her writing.

I will, however, fully admit that Rand contributed somewhat to this viewpoint of her work in her statements of having lived out her philosophies every day of her life. This leads people who are looking for something to attack to view anything she wrote through that filter rather than on the merits of the philosophy itself.

I understand that not everyone agrees with Rand and there are many people who actively dislike her. I’m more than willing to talk on Objectivism on the basis of what is actually written, removing the filter of Rand’s less than ideal personal adherence to it. Putting out an obviously slanted attack piece under the guise of a book review? Not so appropriate.

Now, all arguments aside of whether it should or should not be regulated, I’d much rather see it legal, taxed, and regulated than I would simply prohibited. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colorado) has a position article posted at Rollcall.com regarding this issue, pointing out some of the dangers to consumers if the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) isn’t repelled and/or corrected.

At the end of the day, the UIGEA was yet another attempt at legislating morality. This is unacceptable, just like every other case of providing for the prosecution of victimless “crimes.” One of the few things for which I will applaud Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) is his push to clear the legality of online gambling in the United States.

The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) is continuing to lobby Congress on behalf of the poker industry, and I fully support them doing so. If I want to sit at home and play poker online for actual money, that’s my decision. I don’t need the Federal Government playing nanny with me and telling me what I can and can’t do online in this situation.

Obviously there are other issues out there of greater import at the moment, but I can always hope that if Congress can spend time on hearings about the BCS, they can take a day or so and correct the idiocy of the UIGEA.

First and foremost, there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to pass anything of this nature. Interstate Commerce, you say? If they were looking at further regulating the health insurance/care industry and were looking at the rules that chain companies to the overhead increasing policies requiring them to have different policies for each state in which they operate, I would completely agree that was within their authority. Wholesale requiring people to have insurance (and threatening them with several thousand dollar finds and/or multi-year prison terms if they don’t comply)? Not in the slightest bit within the Constitution scope of their authority. This, however, matters not a whit to a majority of the members of the House of Representatives (and, arguably, doesn’t matter a lick to most of the minority who voted against the bill).

The other big item of hypocrisy and frustration is Pelosi ignoring the promises of transparency and openness preached when President Obama took office. There had been a promise that any legislation would be posted on the Internet for 72 hours before a vote to allow constituents to read it. As with most other major legislation this year, this did not happen. At least in this case, unlike the stimulus bill, there was an actual written bill before the vote. Regardless, the final version was not available for public consumption for 72 hours before the vote.

At the moment, my only thought of saving grace are the fact that this bill is pretty much DOA when it hits the Senate. As well, there is much less wiggle room in the Senate to be able to get a bill passed to forward on to the President’s desk for a signature. Given this, I have hope the Senate will block this horrible version of healthcare reform from every making its way into law.

First and foremost, Congress is massively overstepping its bounds with healthcare reform. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows them to do this, but if you ask your average member of Congress, they don’t care. This is one of the grosser violations of the Tenth Amendment, but it’s “for the people” so it’s okay, right?

Like I said, disgusted.

Now let’s move on to Harry Reid’s commentary yesterday that there will be an ‘opt out’ provision for States on the Public Option (or the ‘Competitive’ option as Pelosi apparently trying to rebrand it). On the one hand, you could say this is a win for State sovereignty. Call me cynical, but I don’t see it that way. I see it as nothing more than a political trick. If you put in the ‘opt out’ provision and a State chooses to take it, Congress can then say to everyone in that state, ‘Hey, it’s not our fault! We put it in there, but your State decided they didn’t want it, so it’s all their fault!’

Given that little tidbit, I honestly do not expect any State to exercise the Opt Out option. It’s in there simply as a bone to toss to the Blue Dog Democrats in an attempt to get them on board while still placating the far Left in the Democratic Party that’s screaming they’ll revolt if there isn’t a Public Option included in the Healthcare bill.

Rather than this massive expansion of cost, debt, and power from the Federal Government, I would much rather see them do things that are legitimately within their authority. Let’s start with Tort Reform (loser pays system, perhaps?) and removing barriers to selling insurance across state lines (you know, actually using the Interstate Commerce clause in a legitimate fashion).

At the end of the day, this is simply another unconstitutional expansion of Federal Authority, but the majority of people don’t care because they buy into whatever excuse is needed to keep them from actually thinking.

Point one was regarding the Estate tax, which drops to 0% next year. At the end of the year, however, it expires and goes back up to 55%. Weisberg’s claim is with the sunsetting of this, it will drive some older Americans to either commit suicide, find ways to die, or push their heirs to pull the plug before the tax cut sunsets. Since the Republicans were the ones to champion this bill, obviously they have it in for seniors. This, of course, ignores the fact this tax cut could be made permanent. Obviously with the Democrats in charge right now, this won’t happen. After all, setting up a legal way to get 55% of money that’s already been taxed in many cases is something that likely has several of them drooling. And they don’t even have to do anything to make it happen. They can simply say ‘well, this provision was in there to begin with, so it’s not our fault.’

Next Weisberg moves on to Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security. He leaves out a rather important part, however. Bush’s plan would have let people direct the investment of a very small percentage of their Social Security contributions. Nevermind that Social Security is functionally bankrupt and is the biggest legal Ponzi scheme in the US. In Weisberg’s eyes, we can’t allow people the personal freedom to direct how they set up for their retirement, because that would lead to people being destitute and having a poor quality of life. He simply changes the facts to make his point a bigger one by casting this as Bush having tried to privatize all of Social Security.

The last thing he hits on was Bush’s curtailing of Federal funding for Stem Cell research. I will be the first person to agree that Stem Cell research is one of the best avenues for finding cures for many debilitating diseases. I could go into the discussion of what stem cell lines Bush removed from Federal funding lines and the like, but really that ignores the main point. Funding this isn’t the responsibility of the Federal Government. This is something that should be handled by private industry and not by throwing tax dollars at it. When it was originally done, I had zero issue with Bush’s actions (not touching the discussion of his reasons for his actions, however). However, Weisberg clearly wants to cast this as another way the Republicans want to kill of Grandma and Grandpa.

If one side is going to throw stones, they really should make sure their walls aren’t made of glass before doing so. Even more so, they really should make sure what they’re throwing are the stones they want them to be. Of course, politics anymore is based on the idea of the Big Lie. Tell it often enough, and people will believe it. Or at least enough people that it doesn’t matter.

There are two stories I’ve heard about Edward Kennedy, however, that remind me that at the end of the day, he was a person like the rest of us. The first of these is an anecdote given by Jamie Dupree, WSB’s Washington Correspondent. He has noted that one of his best memories of Kennedy is seeing him often at the end of the day go out to the park across the street from the Senate office building with his dog and spend time just throwing the ball with his dog.

The other involves a friend of mine and my dad’s who works in Martha’s Vineyard. He and his family attend the same church that Edward Kennedy did, and his stepson would sell papers outside of the Church on Sundays in order to make money. Every Sunday, Senator Kennedy would stop, buy a paper, and encourage the boy to keep up the good work. A few years later, Senator Kennedy offered to put forward the boy’s name as a candidate for a military academy as a reward for his willingness to work.

Both of these situations illustrate that while I did not agree with the man’s political policies in many cases or some of his past actions, he was still a person like the rest of us and generally a good person.

Rest in peace, Senator Kennedy. Your passing closes the final door on Camelot.

So let’s look at Presidents who have been impeached or seriously threatened with it. Andrew Johnson was impeached in the House and found not guilty in the Senate. With Richard Nixon, there was a motion with a lot of steam to impeach him that he headed off by resigning. Bill Clinton was impeached in the House and found not guilty in the Senate.

In order for the President to be impeached, there has to be enough evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors” for the House to vote in favor of articles of Impeachment. You cannot impeach a President (or any other Federal official) just because you dislike their policies or you think they’re doing things wrong. Andrew Johnson was accused of violating the Tenure of Office Act. I’m sure most people are aware of why impeachment was being considered for Nixon. Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Right now, I’ve yet to see anything Obama has done that would warrant impeachment. Do I agree with everything? Absolutely not (not that this is a big shock to anyone reading this). Do I think some of the things he’s done have been shady and borderline? Sure, but then so were many of the things G.W. Bush did in his administration.

Calling for impeachment just because you don’t like a President’s policy cheapens the process and what impeachment means. Disagree all you want, but if you’re going to start yelling for impeachment, please make sure there’s something worthy of it. Much like people on either side of the healthcare discussion screaming ‘NAZI’ at the other side, calling for impeachment on frivolous grounds just makes you look like an idiot.

The way I read it, they are protesting Gwinnett’s moving into this field because they think there are enough places that can do it already in north Georgia and that the state doesn’t is making a mistake in granting the request (the same state, mind you, that granted their request to start one). Maybe I’m alone in this, but this strikes me more as asking the government to continue to facilitate the limited monopoly Emory and Piedmont have for these procedures.

This is yet another reason why we need less government involvement in healthcare rather than more. This is one private group asking the government to use their monopoly on force to protect them from another private group in fair competition. At this end of the day, this boils down simply to those two hospitals not wanting the competition, not out of any real concerns over treatment.

I think the part that amuses me the most in this article is Emory’s complaint stating the state sanctioning for Gwinnett should be revoked due to lack of publicity about the program’s opening. Since when does lack of publicity mean something shouldn’t be granted? If I was a hospital administer, I wouldn’t sink a lot of money into hyping something until I knew I was going to be able to do it either.

Asking the government to step in and protect your business in the private market is nothing more than economic cowardice. I sincerely hope the courts laugh Emory and Piedmont out of the courtroom.

http://adventuresofcitizenx.com/2009/08/17/socialized-medicine-marches-on.aspx?ref=rss

It’s a good explanation of some of the rhetoric being used currently in the Health Care debate as well as a viewpoint of why the ‘Co-Ops’ now being proposed are going to be just as bad for private competition as a Government Option.

Definitely worth a read in my opinion.

My starting point for anything is “where does the Federal Government have the authority to do this?” With many of the programs that are brought forward, no matter what side of the aisle serves as the point of origin, my take on it is ‘no.’

Healthcare Reform/National Healthcare? No.
Corporate Bailouts/Take overs? No.
Providing Prescription Drugs? No.

While nits can be picked back and forth regarding various proposals and the like for healthcare reform and/or a form of National healthcare, the simple fact remains that I do not believe the Federal Government has the authority to do this. I’m sure there are a number of people who will point to Article I Section 8 (for those who don’t know that chapter and verse, it says the following: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;). General Welfare, as I read that, does not mean the Federal Government is allowed to take the fruits of the labors of one group of people and give it either directly or indirectly to other people. That is an abuse of the authority to use force given to the Government.

So the bottom line is I don’t care if one side or the other or both is lying is what is proposed. I don’t care if people showing up at Town Hall meetings are hired/organized by the healthcare industry or sent out by the unions. The bottom line for me remains that this is not the responsibility of the Federal Government in the first place, and they should turn their attention to other things, like cutting the amount of money Washington is spending (that we don’t have in the first place) rather than finding new things on which to spend more money we don’t have.